I was bored and I thought there wasn't enough religious discussions here:)
The title is unrelated, just to catch your attention.
When asked about a belief or proof of such, a believer will quote their holy book and say "it's in the bible, it's the word of god, it is the truth, it is absolute."
When trying to point out the too common omissions by believers, an atheist will quote a passage (about slavery, murder, genocide, abuse, etc.) and say "it's in the bible!" A believer will reply: "It is out of context."
If something depends on context, it is relative, therefore, not absolute.
Context is so very valuable and context is not relative, it is absolute because it narrows an otherwise wide area of misconception to a single, factoid. Context is what permits the bible to keep consistency. Context is a form of the glue that units the OT and NT together, because in everything the OT and NT are linked together. One cannot find a principle in either testament that is not confirmed from one to the other. The OT confirms the NT and the NT is backed up by the OT.
Context, so sweet meshing the word of God into one completely perfect book.
don't even think of denying this truth. It is written i am not coming back to discuss it, email me if you think what you have to say is important lol.
Please re-read what I wrote, you're confused. I said:
Something that depends on context is relative.
Context is absolute.
Context makes whatever needs to be put in context relative to the context. It doesn't matter if the context is absolute or not. And in fact, in this case, it isn't anyway! I'll put it in less abstract form to see if you understand better:
The bible says slavery is okay. That is a statement from the bible. The context of that is that at the time slavery was seen as a normal thing and had been so for ages.
See? The statement is what should be absolute, if the bible was the word of god. The context is here obviously not absolute, since the views on slavery have changed a lot, for better (at least that's what I feel, if god disagrees so be it). So what does this tell you? Should that statement be absolute, it'd still be true regardless of the context. But it isn't, and is no longer defended, because it is relative to the times. What happens is that it is disregarded as a matter of context.
"don't even think of denying this truth. It is written i am not coming back to discuss it, email me if you think what you have to say is important lol."
Please don't tell me what not to think, and don't ask me to e-mail you to compensate for your close-mindedness.
Heavens!SpookyFox, You gotta be kidding. You said there isn't enough religion discussion ? Huh?WHAT? Where have you been and what planet did you just float in from? LOL!!!!!!
But I didn't come to discuss/debate anything. I just thought it was hilarious that you stated that ........."I was bored and I thought there wasn't enough religious discussions here:)"
....and felt like telling you so.............................because I am bored,too.
I have to ask the question I heard a comedian ask a long time ago...WHY DID JESUS HAVE ALL THOSE DICIPLES AND NO DICIPLETES?
I HAVE TO SAY UHHMMMMM....
Happy? The guy spent most of his life lost in the dessert and when he wasn't lost, he was living with knowing he was about to be executed.
Happy? NO, no, no, no, no....
Trolling for attention? I can't prove you are and it's not in the Bible, but this is absolute -ly silly.
One does not have to prove God exists! He exists if you believe or not! I don't believe God needs approval from anyone! You can believe however you want! That is one's right!
Peace to you!!!!
And Jesus was not Gay!
God will prove himself when time is up! That will be a revelationt to many!!!
*Bringing my sling chair, popcorn and scorecard, waiting for the show to begin*
I wish I knew. I rather popcorn and ice cream than outrage though.
as if this merits any sort of reply.. is jesus gay, lol.
actually there are two answers to this question:
1) the word gay had another meaning centuries ago, it meant happy. Yes jesus was happy, more like joyful since joy is a gift of the Spirit and surpasses happiness.
and there you have it.
have a nice day
Just out of curiosity, is there any empirical evidence (since you're so fond of it) that Jesus had a sexual prefference for women?
How disappointing, they are rising above it. I just hate it when they do that.
Why would the christians start a outrage? Jesus was not gay.I hope you all enjoy your icecream and popcorn while waiting on the fireworks.
Is this a topic at all? May be it is a joke
Ok here goes, hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahha
The next joke:
Was Jesus a peacock?
JESUS blood is different & peculier.All other messengers are equal to ours.So the nature of blood of jesus is the main roll to complete the task for us.
Only the peculier blood has the cabability to get all spritual gifts [i.e miracle operation,Holy speech,knowing of future Etc]
That is why GOD prefers jesuss holy birth for us.
In this world nobody is having all spritual Gifts.
Sombody can speak spritual knowledge
somebody can done miracle
sombdy can tell future correctly
Jebus Didn't exist, so he couldn't have been gay.
I'll tell you who is gay in the Babble though.
Read about him havin a full on sexual encounter with Sauls son Jonathon. They take off their garments and embrace, while telling each other how much they love each other. Meanwhile the Homophobic Saul chased David off cause he was subverting his son to Homosexuality. Well Technically David was Bi.
Oh and Paul was totally a homosexual, he made multiple references to this, saying that god had given him a thorm of the flesh to deal with, and that he couldnt have a wife.
Nothing wrong with homosexuality though, and if paul wasnt such a self hater who couldnt come to terms with his homosexuality, then christianity propably wouldnt be condembing it today.
Sex was the last thing Jesus must have thought about.
The Scriptures tell us that Jesus became a man (human flesh) in order to redeem mankind. 1 Timothy 2:5-6. We are also told in Heb. 2:14-17 that Jesus became human, "took on him the seed of Abraham" and was "made like unto his brethren, and that he was tempted along human weaknesses." And in Hebrews 7:26 we're told he was "undefiled and separate from sinners."
So because Jesus was originally a spirit being and then became a human man in order to sacrifice his life for mankind, he had the right to marry. However, since his sole purpose was to accomplish God's will, to provide a ransom, why would he distract himself with marriage? Heb. 10:9 says that Jesus came "to do thy will, O God."
We are also told that when Christ's kingdom is established on earth in due time, Jesus will be the "Father" of the race when they are resurrected. (Isaiah 9:6) In redeeming mankind, he will be symbolically a "Second Adam," the father of the race, 1 Corinthians 15:45, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [Jesus] was made a quickening [life-giving] spirit." If Jesus is to be the father of the race, it doesn't make sense that he would marry a woman in his eartly life and then later he would be considered her "father" in the resurrection.
Also, we know Jesus had to die and be resurrected, which is contrary to Dan Brown's book. 1 Corinthians 15:14, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
There is nothing in the Bible which teaches that Jesus married. It is relying on outside sources, which I believe are false and unreliable. Jesus came to earth as a human being for one sole purpose: to sacrifice his life in order to redeem mankind. He gave up his earthly rights as a perfect human man (including marriage) in order to provide a ransom. Because of that, he was resurrected to a spiritual divine nature. In due time, he will establish his kingdom on earth as well as heaven (Matt. 6:10) and with his spiritual bride (the church), he will bless the world of mankind.
Jesus didn't need an earthly bride because the Scriptures speak of the fact that he will have a spiritual bride, the church. The church are faithful Christians who follow Christ's example of giving up their will to do God's will unto death. It would be inconsistent for Christ to take an earthly bride when we are told that he is espoused and waiting for a spiritual marriage. 2 Cor 11:2, For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Did jesus have a penis?
Did jesus ever get stiff or was he divinely impotent?
Did jesus have balls with semen in them?
Did semen ever come from his balls out of his penis from say wet dreams?
If not, then how did the semen ever get replaced, semen has a short shelf life, if jesuses semen was never ejeculated then it would ROT IN HIS BALLS.
For wet dreams to occur them jesus would have had to have a dream, either about women, men or animals, what did jesus dream about?
I am going to ask a Q about this.!!!!
Frivolity can be answered frivolously bu I had better not
totally bull s**t...You dont have right to ask these stupid things for Jesus. This is sure that he was a human being and he have all things who have any man. ...
Ok children thats enough , shut that thing off and go play outside for a while.......
Yeah OK, I get the title here was just to grab everyone's attention. I'm a little bit sorry about that cause I thought for once, these religious threads would have something new or insightful to offer.
When I was growing up and going to Catholic school, Jesus transended sexuality. It was something he was beyond and I don't believe it was ever mentioned.
But since you put your foot into it by asking the question, what do you think? You must have given it some thought to even ask the question.
Personally, I don't mind Jesus being gay, but I'd rather he was bi. It just seems more fair that way.
I don't care who or what Jesus fancied. Every time I imagine him he's around 30 years old, because that's usually the way he's portrayed. I have no idea what he said and did when he was a teenager, let alone his private thoughts at the time. But I really doubt his hormones had 0 influence on his thoughts and body.
Jesus was gay meaning He was happy but no He wasn't homosexual. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.
people are so gross .... I mean really .... why do people constanly worry about others sex lives ... even if Jesus was Gay it's really none of my business .... but I think God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve
anyone care that homosexuality is not only condemned religiously, but biologically as well? There is a plethora of christian-bashing anti-religionists on this site, how do they feel about nature being against their liberalism? As for Jesus being gay, come on, you don't even believe that.
i dont have any stake in the matter, but i once did a hub on "penis fencing" something i thought was funny that slugs do.
in the process i discovered that ALL of our closest genetic matches including the animals that are considered the most intelligent (bonobos, dolphins etc.) love to love each other. Gender isnt an issue.
the laws of nature seems to be get off on anything that will let you.
you must not own any animals if you didnt already realize that.
if homosexuality only pertains to same sex , sexual activity than nature is against you - if homosexuality is same sex "love" - then i know of no way to prove or disprove that statement
that's hilarious!Perhaps we should make penis-fencing a sport. Of course, you know animals know no better. We should put ourselves beyond. But aren't those acts possessive and integral in establishing dominance in the beast world? My only point was that biologically we aren't made for homosexuality. As for Jesus being surrounded by men, one should explore the role of women in biblical society. They were often stoned for speaking to men without the presence of their husband. Plus, Jesus was sinless, and homosexuality was indeed a sin.
Nonsense. Nature is indifferent.
"Nature don't care. Nature just is."
Well his disciples were all men, so he probably had one big gang bang and then performed his magic tricks with his one eyed fish fillet.
"But aren't those acts possessive and integral in establishing dominance in the beast world?"
with the dolphins and bonobos its usually just for fun - although mounting is def a dominance behavior with many other species
According to apocryphal texts, Jesus loved and impregnated Mary Magdalene. Regardless of how believers feel about this theory, I would take that as a click on the "not gay" side. Zeus, on the other hand, was a total closet case.
according to the real bible he was in control of his flesh and that he was to give his life for his "bride", the church. doesn't get clearer than that. It seems the accusers would have to fabricate some proof of his homosexuality, but proof isn't often their strong suit.
by Jacqui 5 years ago
Why is context relevant to some verses of the Bible and not others?For some reason, my previous question was deleted by HP - I apologise if I caused offense - I'm actually curious (and would actually like to write a hub...). Here goes: It was suggested to me that the Biblical verses condoning...
by A Thousand Words 8 years ago
I was just laying here on my mother's bedroom floor. She turned to one of the TV preachers, and he was talking about how much Jesus loves us, and the sacrifices that He made for us, and how every human is expected to consciously make a decision to follow Him.And I thought about the girls stuck...
by JP Carlos 5 years ago
What is the best way to explain the existence of God to an atheist?I've heard people try to convince atheists that there is a God by quoting the Bible or some other holy book. But quoting from such materials won't work. You have to believe in them before you can accept them as plausible...
by Greatest I am 8 years ago
Jesus Christ: Madman or Something Worse?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4QXOgVf … r_embeddedWas Jesus a man or a God?Was his policies moral or not?RegardsDL
by maestrowhit 12 years ago
Without delving into a lot of deep studying on the origins of words, I'll make a suggestion. Could it be that Jesus was redefining what God is when He called Himself the Son of Man?THink about it: He often referred to God as His Father, right? And then He refers to Himself as the Son of Man....
by sandra rinck 11 years ago
I would say Jesus would mean more if he was a man because then he is just like us and proved the power of faith in God. Plus Jesus said plain as day, I am from the seed of David. I am just like you, and do not bow down to me, I am just like you, or have no other God besided the...
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|